Another week, another television episode (sorry...). This one is the culmination of one of the larger pop-culture mysteries of the 1990s, finally revealing who killed Laura Palmer; as such I'd avoid it if you don't want the series spoilt for you (it is really good). Back from the holiday I mentioned last time so I'm now around at liberty, able to respond quickly to any concerns raised. Thanks in advance, guys. GRAPPLEX 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Pinged; had included myself and Idiotchalk as the main contributors of content material. GRAPPLEX 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, you two did a great job of the main writing of it. TBrandley 23:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Image review: Both images have acceptable licenses Cambalachero (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Article review: Is the "Twin peaks" village fictional? If so, it must be pointed that way. Are "Bob" and "Mike" written in capital letters in the original? Usually it's not needed to use references in plot sections, but if you will do so, then include at least one in each paragraph. In the "Themes" section there is a sentence with two quotes, there should be a footnote at the end of each one (if it's the same one, repeat it). Cambalachero (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
He's referencing another episode, as this background information is not in Episode 14. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for the review. Have now mentioned that the town is fictional, although the wording as was had mirrored Episode 2 (Twin Peaks). MIKE and BOB are capitalised in most sources used, though admittedly it's a bit jarring to see. The sources used for the plot section are only for the "Background" heading, as it discusses events not seen in this episode; all paragraphs there are sourced, but the paragraphs in the "Events" heading, discussing the events of this particular episode, are not as they are supported by the subject of the article itself (what is cited is, again, material relating to prior episodes, not supported by the subject). Have duplicated the ref in the two-quote sentence, though I feel it's redundant to cite one source twice in one sentence (in consecutive sentences, yes, but I'm not entirely convinced by doing it in the same one twice). GRAPPLEX 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
re: BOB and MIKE. I think this is purely a stylistic issue and thus we can defer to our own relevant style guide, MOS:ALLCAPS, despite what the sources say. To give an analogy: your sources might use the quoted "Twin Peaks" for the show and an italicised Episode 14 for the episode. However, we'd still format these as Twin Peaks and "Episode 14" per our in-house style.—indopug (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough; I had assumed the use was innocuous enough. I'll want to keep an internal consistency with these articles so I'll get on this when I'm back from work today, so I can do them all at once (if you could ping me about this again or even comment again here that'd remind me to get on it). GRAPPLEX 07:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Grapple X. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Still solid, like at the GA review.
questions Norma - About?
Changed to "speaks to"; she's not interrogating her so much as making conversation. GRAPPLEX 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
slow pace compared to the "fast-forward, instant payoff philosophy of most television". - Compared to or contrasted with?
Support - Most of my comments were dealt with at the GA review back in August. A couple minor notes and a copyedit, but nothing holding back my support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your review; have addressed your points now. GRAPPLEX 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments' good work, minded to support.
I think BOB could be better introduced. We get Killer BOB, then "the demon BOB", and thereafter, it's just BOB. Perhaps a brief parenthetical explaining that BOB is, in fact, a demon, who has been in possession of a town resident?
Sure, added. GRAPPLEX 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
" criticized for prolonging" I'd toss an "unduly" in front of the prolonging.
Can the rating be compared to something? As it is, I don't know if 20 percent is good or bad ..
It's good (although it was only the 51st-highest score that week, 1 in 5 of every viewer seems good to me, especially as shows like The X-Files pulled in the same percentage while being the highest-viewed show, which I guess speaks to a greater number of broadcasts being watched at once but that's neither here nor there), but it's hard to put it into context—what should it be compared to in order to seem universal (the Super Bowl? Other Twin Peaks episodes?). I had put it into the context of what it actually represents—20% of the audience, rather than just a point score—hoping that would work. If you have a suggestion for a good yardstick I can fire it in for context but I don't really have a clue myself what to use. GRAPPLEX 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I would use the 51st of the week. That really isn't that great, it's midtable. Compared to, say, the similar episodes (revealing a murderer) on Dallas or Soap, it really isn't that much. However, the episodes I mention were relentlessly hyped, in one case for months. In this case, I gather it was not known that the murderer would be revealed? If so, you might want to say it somewhere in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
51st was already in there, but I've rearranged things to put that earlier. It was known that the episode would reveal the killer, newspapers had mentioned it in the lead up to the broadcast; but by this point the series had meandered into other storylines that had begun to put viewers off and the move was likely just seen as a desperate gambit to win some numbers back (it did bring an extra 6 million viewers over the previous episode, which is included). By this stage in the game, "who killed Laura Palmer" had lost a lot of steam compared to "who shot JR", I guess. Soap I'm entirely unfamiliar with. (I think that came out wrong...) GRAPPLEX 14:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"MIKE goes into a spasm". You have not mentioned MIKE being among those assembled at the hotel.
Good catch, added. GRAPPLEX 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
What is the reasoning for having SOME of the content in this section sourced? I could see having none of it sourced, or all of it, but some?
Quotes need to be sourced, while the main storyline doesn't. TBrandley 01:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep; as above, the cites are only for material not actually mentioned in this episode, as they don't fall under the idea of a subject being its own source (the plot to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead wouldn't need cited but if anything from Hamlet that isn't depicted in the former were mentioned, it would need a source. Why in Christ is Tom Stoppard my best example?) GRAPPLEX 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
" Sarah Palmer (Grace Zabriskie) struggles across her living room floor " struggles does not convey locomotion.
Now "crawls". GRAPPLEX 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"leaving part of series of clues for Cooper" I'm not sure what is being said here.
Redone to directly address what this was; previous deaths like Laura Palmer had similar letter-under-the-nail clues. GRAPPLEX 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"TV-14", "TV-PG" As these are roughly equivalent, suggest tightening with deleting the "though" and replacing comma with semicolon.
I don't really understand what the quote is trying to say. It seems to be both saying that the writers of The Fugitive both were and were not mentioning the search for the one-armed man every week.
Hmm. I'm not seeing that myself but I can change it if you have a suggestion that would be clearer (I'm maybe too close to it to see how it reads in a vacuum); what's being said is that the one-armed man is sort of the always-in-the-background motivation but isn't always the subject of each individual episode, just as the murder of Laura Palmer drove Twin Peaks but it still spent plenty of times on other plotlines (such as a sawmill arson or bucknuts dream). If there's a better way to word it I'm open to changing it. GRAPPLEX 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
If it satisfies other reviewers, I would say let it go.
" in which BOB inhabits Leland Palmer," Surely that had already occurred, isn't it when the possession becomes known?
That's all.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, between myself and TBrandley I believe everything has been responded to though I'd like your opinion on a few points above. GRAPPLEX 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Support comments were substantively satisfied. Nice job.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and support! TBrandley 15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see another Twin Peaks article to review--and one of my favorites, at that. It looks comparable to the Episode Two FA thus far. I've been making some copyedits as I go through, hopefully you approve.
"visit The Great Northern hotel in an attempt to find BOB's human host. Upon their arrival, MIKE goes into a spasm, indicating that BOB's host is nearby." Is there a good way of avoiding the "BOB's host" repetition here?
Changed to "indicating that BOB has inhabited someone nearby". GRAPPLEX 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"but the waitress, along with Ed, puts on a façade and conceals the truth" I tend not to italicize façade, is that the general practice?
Guess not. Still a bit confused by the whole loanword thing. Removed the italics. GRAPPLEX 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Have to run now, but will try to get back to this soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look; glad you enjoyed the episode. It's probably the highlight of the season, perhaps barring the finale. GRAPPLEX 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, for me, this or the conclusion of episode 16 would be the highlight of the season. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Here are some small points, just a few more tweaks needed.
"Frost co-wrote three further installments—"Episode 16", "Episode 26" and "Episode 29". It was directed by Lynch" It's not clear what "It" refers to here.
"It was directed by Lynch, the fifth such episode of Twin Peaks; he later directed "Episode 29", the series' finale. This entry was rated TV-14 in the United States" It's not clear what "This entry" refers to here.
"This technique draws attention to the painting which Ferguson's head will be put through" Nothing major, but here's a proposed rewording: "This technique draws attention to the painting with which Ferguson will be assaulted"?
Is there anything you could add about the music of the episode? It was somewhat prominent toward the end.
Have you checked out these  potential sources? I haven't looked in detail but there might be some content you could use. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll have a scan over those sources soon. As for the music, there's actually nothing specific to be said about it—Badalamenti didn't write new pieces once the series started regular production, simply referring staff to a library of pieces he composed around the time of "Pilot" being produced and allowing them to doctor the samples to create what they needed. I think I've mentioned that in an earlier article, though it really belongs somewhere central like Music of Twin Peaks rather than an individual episode's article. GRAPPLEX 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Delegate note -- hi TB, while I can gather that the source for the quotebox is #32, it should be explicitly cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I've addressed it, good catch! Cheers, TBrandley 05:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Support Commentsreading through (again) now on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Below is the only quibble and it is not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
... noted that fans and critics had begun to turn against the series by this point - hmm, makes it sound political...rephrase?
THanks for your support. I've changed the relevant line to "begun to lose interest in the series" instead; how does that sound? GRAPPLEX 07:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)